Understanding Ron Paul's foreign policy philosophy

Though the CT GOP primary is on April 24, with the GOP primary season fast approaching. I encourage you to watch this video before you vote. Rather than the usual sound bites offered on TV, including in the debates, this 13 minutes video provides some very important context regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy views:Having said that, like most GOP primary voters I have concerns about Ron Paul's world view. For instance, I'm gravely concerned about the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Then what happens if the Iranian government falls and the "lone wolf" gets control of a nuke?

But frankly, that issue gives me graver concerns with other candidates. Specifically, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And which country is more likely to have a failed government: Iran or Pakistan? Well, Iran has been stable -- albeit hostile toward the US -- since 1979. At the same time, Pakistan has had assassinations and coups galore.

Pakistan is a bigger risk for America than Iran. Yet some GOP candidates and many elected Republicans insist on continued funding for Pakistan, despite the reality that they harbored bin Laden! There's too much focus on a preemptive strike against Iran. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. I give Newt credit. He was right to say the national discussion should include Pakistan.

Anyway, I haven't heard Ron Paul's thoughts on the lone wolf scenario. That's one concern I have with his foreign policy, but what is Ron Paul's primary motivator for running?

Ron Paul's not running primarily because he wants to end the wars. And he's not running because he wants to be powerful and feel important. Nope. Not at all.

Ron Paul's running because he wants to force the Congress to do its job. In other words:

If we go to war, the Congress must declare it. Ron Paul would not partake in wars without being directed to do so by Congress.

If we print money, the Congress must enact it. Ron Paul would fight to end the Fed and stop the Congress' outsourcing of monetary policy.

If we spend money, the Congress must adopt it. Ron Paul would veto these ridiculous continuing resolutions that occur at the 11th hour under the cover of darkness.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is not running to end the wars. Ron Paul is running to demand the Congress do its job. As such, he would not have a weak foreign policy in the least bit. Rather, he'd simply be rebalancing the power between the Executive and the Legislative branches. Not-so-coincidentally, forcing the members of Congress to cast votes would have the added benefit of allowing voters to better judge our Senators and Representatives!

He's said this time and time again, the Congress must declare a war. If so, he'll forcefully execute the will of the people as it is voiced through their members of Congress.

I think the notion that Ron Paul is weak on defense is offbase. In order to fully understand his foreign policy philosophy, we should:

1) have a better understanding of the context in which he speaks (see the above video); and

2) recognize that his top priorities is not to end wars or avoid wars, but to require the Congress to do its job.

Tim White